Re: Curry vs. Smith/Monroe: Point/Counterpoint

Originally Posted by txramsfan

Well, with that thinking then Brian Orakpo used Jason Smith for two years and Eugen Monroe got schooled by the USC defense.

C'mon beast, Andre Smith was the Outland Trophy winner. He won every award for being the best O lineman in college football AND is considered the best blocking OT in the draft. If that's the case, why wouldn't the Rams take a more detailed look at him seeing how the offense is going to a power running game?

Best run blocking, but definately not best pass blocking, that tittle belongs to Eugene Monroe. Smith has also been described being a better RT or even a guard than he would be LT. Character issues aside the Rams probably would be taking a closer look, but he does have those issues. Regardless of the system when it comes to LT and who can play the position more people are confident about Monroe and Jason Smith playing there instead of Andre Smith.

Re: Curry vs. Smith/Monroe: Point/Counterpoint

Originally Posted by Goldenfleece

I think it is a more difficult choice than pundits want to make it out to be. Here are just some of my thoughts...

On Curry as a Two Down Player
The argument here seems to be that you can't use a top five pick on a guy who isn't going to be on the field when the team goes to the nickel, but how many every down positions are there? On offense, the second receiver, tight end, and fullback may all come out at different points depending on whether it's an obvious passing or running down. Many teams opt for a runningback platoon, a goal line back, or a third down back with catching ability. Defensive tackles and ends rotate in and out throughout the game to stay fresh.

If a top five pick has to be a guy who will be in for every snap on one side of the ball, the only positions eligible would be quarterback, offensive tackle, guard, center, wide receiver, corner, safety, and outside linebacker. Of course, conventional wisdom says you don't take a guard, center, or safety in the top ten either. And OLB is usually judged to be a less important position than MLB, even if they do stay on the field on passing downs.

On Need
It's hard to say which we've had problems with longer--pass protection or run defense. We have ranked among the five worst teams at preventing sacks every year since 2002, and we've been in the bottom five in rushing defense almost every year since 2003 (although in 2007 we made it up to 17th against the run).

As far as the starters go, the question is whether we're worse off playing an underachieving right tackle on the left side or an under-utilized weakside linebacker in the middle. In 2008, Spoon had his worst season statistically since he was a rookie. USA Today's fantasy section suggests that it "seems certain" he will move back to the weakside (their source is reportedly the St. Louis Post-Dispatch), essentially giving us no starter at MLB.

On the Drop-off in Talent
There are not a lot of middle linebacker prospects expected to go within the first 35 picks or so. Curry and Maualuga will almost certainly be off the board by the end of the first. IMO, Laurinitis is the only middle linebacker prospect who might be available when we pick in the second and still be good value. I don't think we could assume he would be available, either. At OT, the prospects are a little better as there are probably 5-6 players at the position who would warrant a first round grade, and since no less than 8 teams addressed the offensive tackle position in last year's draft, there might be fewer teams than usual planning to use a first round pick on an OT this year. I would say that it is likely that either Britton or Beatty could be had at the top of the second.

Whether we go OT or LB in the first, we would have to be willing to accept the risk that we might not be able to secure a solid starter through the draft for the other of the two positions. After all, we have plenty of other needs.

Along with the voices in AV's head, I think that is an excellent summary of the issues at hand.

My position on the "run D vs O-line first" debate is that I think we are more likely to improve with a new OT this year and put ourselves in the middle of the first round to take a top LB if a squad of lesser guys doesn't get it done this year.

Remember that the LB group is coming back intact, healthy, a bit more experienced & hopefully better-coached. It will certainly be added to from somewhere in the draft or FA. PLUS Carriker will hopefully be 100%, C. Long better, a new SS,etc. I think there's reason for optimism on the run D front already.

That is definitely not true on the O-line. 2009 may be like 2007 again in the sense that no one will be in the same spot as projected.I want those changes to be determined by quality, not default or compromise this time.Right now I think the only upgraded option without a huge question mark over him is Brown.And now that Leckey & Romberg are gone, who is the back-up C?

I actually covet Curry less for the overall impact I think he could make athletically- not that I don't believe he'll be good; I do, than for his leadership potential.Sintim gets the nod over Laurinaitis in my book for the same reason,although a lesser talent probably.

I'm assuming Spoon didn't want that leader tag because he didn't want to wear the miked helmet.Maybe I'm wrong.Maybe it was Haz's mancrush on Corey.

But I don't think, on balance, that a possibly great LB/leader justifies risking a compromise on the O-line rebuild. Long, Butler, or even Bartell can fill that role, I hope.